Talk:Geth Dropship
Tullis, do you think you'll be able to fly a geth dropship in Mass Effect 2 or 3? If you have any info (or just want to annoy me), tell me as soon as possible. ::Dear Anonymous, no one has any factual or based information on that... however, I seriously doubt it -- 100% positive it won't be a game mechanic. Perhaps such a thing may be enabled in ME1 as well as ME2 by modifications. :: 03:56, 28 June 2008 (UTC) Dropship Image I somewhat agree that the image of the dropship (image below) is obscured in the entire landscape - but it might look better if I cropped the background. Is there a point in doing it? Or do you prefer just using the current one? --silverstrike 16:29, 25 August 2009 (UTC) :I think the current one is best, because it shows the ship in flight and only one is ever shown clinging to the side of a building. --Tullis 16:31, 25 August 2009 (UTC) ::Okay, I'll leave it alone. I think that the images can be deleted... --silverstrike 16:40, 25 August 2009 (UTC) :::Is it all right if I switch some other pictures around and then delete the rest? Juliana Baynham in particular has a truckload of pics. --Tullis 16:43, 25 August 2009 (UTC) ::::Of course, I upload allot in the hope that at least a few will fit the wiki criteria. I think that we should delete duplicates and low resolution ones. ::::If I had any guideline for taking the screenshots, then maybe most of them would of been relevant. (what about he rest of the character images I mentioned in the screenshot talk page? Should I remove that section, or do you want me to continue taking shots?) --silverstrike 17:04, 25 August 2009 (UTC) :::::I'm very sorry. There are some guidelines at the top of the Talk:Screenshots page, but I'll see if I can write up some more, especially for character shots. I generally go by: look at the shots we already have, but as you've proved, we can certainly improve on them so that's not much of a guideline. Another guideline might be: what's cinematic but also shows the character / situation off best? The current character images list is fine, and as always, screenshots are certainly appreciated. --Tullis 18:09, 25 August 2009 (UTC) ::::::Those are more tips on the technicality of how to take interesting screenshots, then guidelines on what elements we want to show in the screenshots: should the character face the "camera", while making hand gestures, looking in some direction, etc. I think that we should go through what we think are good shots, and try to build such a guideline. ::::::I also fix my shots a little, so they won't be too dark, emphasize details, etc (and technically, I have no idea if what I do is good, but so far I didn't hear any complaints, so it seem to work...) --silverstrike 20:59, 25 August 2009 (UTC) :::I've added some specific guidelines to Talk:Screenshots for taking character shots. Hopefully that's a start, we can expand on those as necessary. --Tullis 13:14, 26 August 2009 (UTC) :::Looks like a start. I think that we should remove (or move) this discussion it became redundant on this talk page... ::::I can shift it to Talk:Screenshots if you like. --Tullis 14:30, 26 August 2009 (UTC) :::::I'll add a summery of this discussion on the Talk:Screenshots page - there is no point including this entire discussion. --silverstrike 16:06, 26 August 2009 (UTC) Geth behaviour toward Sovereign in relation to this article Maybe remove the quotes on "god", from what I can tell, to the geth, Sovereign really is a god. On Feros, in the Exo-Geni building they were seen bowing down (praying?!?!?) to a claw shaped object (an altar?!?!?) with a glowing light in the middle of it, underneath which they had placed a few human corpses (as an offering or sacrifice?), and it is possible, at least from a certain angle to watch these geth sit there, but if you get too close, they attack. Upon investigation of this altar, (thats what that thing is, what else is it) Tali remarks that "this structure has significance for the geth" and a comment about "a higher power". That higher power, is obviously Sovereign, and the claws altars are even built by beings the geth build in turn, for example husks. Obviously, in geth beliefs, Sovereign is a god, and only THEIR god, not the husks god, yet the geth took the time to program their husks to build altars to Sovereign. (On an uncharted planet, the husks at the research camp had built an altar to Sovereign). They obviously view Sovereign as a god. So what is the quarrel with the quotes? Well, they imply that Sovereign is not really a god to the geth (we all know that it is not a god at all, but the geth think it is) and that clearly is not true, considering the geth actually worship this monstrosity. Therefore, it would make better sense to actually show how sick the geth are by removing the quotes. Sovereign isn't just something to laugh about to these synthetics, these psychotic AIs literally believe that he is god, and worship him accordingly. 19:53, November 5, 2009 (UTC) :Ok, couple things. First off, I see no problem having the quotes up. The geth view the Reapers as gods, the rest of the galaxy (and the audience, ie us) do not. Simple enough. All the quotes imply is that the other characters do not view Sovereign and the Reapers as gods. They don't really imply that the geth don't see him as a god, and as for implying "that Sovereign is not really a god to the geth", that makes it sound more like it's coming from Sovereign's point of view, and of course he doesn't consider himself a god. Also, how do we know that the husks don't view Sovereign as a god, and that the geth don't consider the Reapers the husk's gods as well? You haven't really presented any evidence to that effect. I mean, the husks are programmed to build the alters, why wouldn't they also be programmed to use them to venerate the Reapers? But first and foremost my question is: why is this on the talk page for geth dropships? SpartHawg948 20:02, November 5, 2009 (UTC) ::I say remove the mention of it being in likeness of Sovereign at all, as is shown in ME2 and 3 the Geth who believeed such was a minority and ALL Geth vehicles has that insectlike look. Hence it has NOTHING to do with the Reapers. Since the rest of the Geth do NOT want anything to do with "The Old Machines" apart from being forced to accept their aid when the Quarians attacked, but they already had all vehicles then. Why this is even left there is beyond me. Should've been "fixed" soon after ME2 was released in all fairness.--Baalzie (talk) 13:56, March 13, 2014 (UTC) Dropship weapons In ME2, the one dropship you see is armed with some sort of downward-facing siege pulse- it uses this weapon to kill some quarians in an entrenched position and collapse a pillar. UERD 00:12, February 2, 2010 (UTC) Further Analysis proves Geth Cruiser's existance. Here we can see the Geth Cruisers. They lack the "claws" of the Geth Dropships as seen here. Furthermore, during the Project freewalker mission That is not a Dropship, clearly that is a capital ship. And the final piece of evidence. See the small ships in Sovereigns shadow? Look very closely and you can see the "claws" of the Geth Dropships, as you can all see they are a fraction of the size of the Geth Cruisers. :Ok... so, despite the fact that none of these ships have ever been canonically called cruisers, and despite the fact that none of them match the profile of the one and only image we know is of a geth cruiser (a piece of concept art), these pictures and original research prove their existence? Hmmm... sorry. You'll need to find something a little more... canonical. SpartHawg948 03:29, August 6, 2010 (UTC) I'm using the term 'Cruiser' lightly. Clearly these are not dropships, but capital ships. During Tali's recruitment, one of the quarians even says. 'A geth patrol ship came by, then dropship''s'' started raining on our position. Meaning the Geth ship carries dropships. You want canonical proof, very well. Go too Harrot's Emporium on Omega. Go to Model 13. Says Geth Ship. Read the description. It says A small model of a get cruiser typical of the kind involved in the battle of the Citadel. Also, just because something doesn't match concept art...really? I guess that's not saren we're fighting, because he doesn't have a cane and isn't dressed in robes. Bro, concept arts are just that, a concept, the actual designs are often much different.--Councilor 'Rumilee 12:54, August 6, 2010 (UTC) :I don't want to get too involved in this, but you should be aware that the model geth ship you purchase in ME2 is explicitly labeled a dropship. You changing the name to "Geth Cruiser" in the articles here isn't going to change it in the game. -- Commdor (Talk) 13:50, August 6, 2010 (UTC) Are you serious? I just went to Omega in my save game. I just posted a direct in game quote. A small model of a get cruiser typical of the kind involved in the battle of the Citadel. But since you don't believe me, here is indisputable proof. --Councilor 'Rumilee 14:18, August 6, 2010 (UTC) :Well, you're right, it doesn't say it's a geth dropship. It says it's a "Geth Ship". I'll make the necessary corrections. -- Commdor (Talk) 15:03, August 6, 2010 (UTC) ::And all this proves is that the model was misnamed, which has been corrected. I also have to call that into question because the Sovereign description says "a small ship model of the geth flagship destroyed at the Battle of the Citadel" (emephsis added). Now we all know that the geth didn't build Sovereign, so I really have to question whether that cruiser description is accurate. It seems bias, and part of the cover up the Council is participating in, like the Sovereign model description. The Sovereign model description is inaccurate so how do we know that this description, which is written in universe after the geth attack, is inaccurate or accurate. We don't. Lancer1289 16:50, August 6, 2010 (UTC) Councilor 'Rumilee, get this straight (and pardon me if this argument has been made already, I skimmed this) MODELS DESCRIPTIONS ARE NOT INDISPUTABLE PROOF. After all, if we're to take the model's word, that shuttle the Normandy SR-2 carries around is not actually a UT-47 Kodiak Drop Shuttle at all. Gatatog Uvenk's ship, on the other hand, is. And the model description you cite states that the geth cruisers were there, not that they were the ships we actually saw. SpartHawg948 17:43, August 6, 2010 (UTC) Did you just ignore the rest of my argument? What about how small the dropships appear in comparison too the Cruisers. According to inverse statements, the galaxy believes that Sovereign was a geth ship, so yes a model bought in verse will refer to it as a 'Geth' ship. The Shuttle is just a mistake, The Cruiser has a different profile from the Dropship. Not to mention if you just look at the Geth Ship during Project freewalker, you can clearly see that is not a Geth Dropship, its far larger than the Normandy. If you look at the cutscene where the Alliance saves the Ascension, you can see clearly that the Geth Ship dwarfs the Normandy. Unless you want to say that the Alliance and Turian Cruisers are also wrong, it still holds weight. Especially when those ships weren't identified until ME2. Again, look at the profile, the way to tell the Geth Cruiser apart from the dropships, is by looking at the underside, Cruisers lack the 'claws' of the Dropships. Dropships are also frigate sized. Not to mention that it would make no sense for a warship with the firepower of the Asari fleet to be threatened by a few Dropships.--Councilor 'Rumilee 21:19, August 6, 2010 (UTC) :Here's a question, since you are basing this whole thing off of the claws that dropships have, did you ever consider that the claws can, oh I don't know, retract into the ship? Since most landing gear, which this seems to be the equivilent of, usually does on large vessels. One example of this is in Star Trek, with the USS Voyager, her gear retracts. Lancer1289 21:23, August 6, 2010 (UTC) ::Actually, the Alliance and turian cruisers were identified well before Mass Effect 2. So there's that. The fact remains that the ships you claim are cruisers have not been identified as such. This seems to be what you are ignoring. You have presented no solid evidence that the ships seen in ME are cruisers, and when presented with evidence that disputes your claims, you blindly dismiss it. SpartHawg948 21:26, August 6, 2010 (UTC) :::Didn't someone else do this in the past as well, dismiss any evidence that disputed their claims? And we all know how that one turned out. Lancer1289 21:29, August 6, 2010 (UTC) ::::So yeah, did some checking, and the turian cruisers were known to be cruisers as soon as ME came out. It's on the bonus disc though, so I can see how it may have been missed if a person doesn't have that. And the Alliance cruisers were, at the very least, definitively identified as Alliance cruisers here on this site well over a year ago, and may have been id'd as Alliance cruisers elsewhere even earlier. SpartHawg948 21:31, August 6, 2010 (UTC) :::::I agree that the ship isn't a Dropship, it's too large, but that doesn't mean it's a Cruiser. It could be any kind of geth ship. You just took a picture of a geth ship and said "Yeah, that over there is a Cruiser.". I could say that fish can fly, but it doesn't mean it's true. Prove that what you're showing is a Cruiser, and we'll all accept it. So far, you haven't done this. I'm sorry, but we need a little more info, from better sources, before any of this can be accepted as true. Arbington 21:32, August 6, 2010 (UTC) ::::::Oh, I'm on to your little ruse here, Arbington! I present: Exhibit A!!! :P SpartHawg948 21:34, August 6, 2010 (UTC) :::::::Eh, if it were up to me, I'd have called those Gliding Fish. They are pretty interesting, though. To me, however, the most impressive example of a "flying" fish would be when Great White sharks leap out from under seals. Arbington 21:45, August 6, 2010 (UTC) Except, the model ship perfectly matches with the ships in orbit of Illos and the ones that assaulted Destiny Ascension. In game labels are canon, you cannot simply dismiss canon as you please. For example if a dictionary has one or two inaccurate definitions, you don't dismiss the entire thing as invalid, you simply label those two entries as invalid. The developers have labeled that class of ship as Geth Cruiser. And the one at Prometheus station also matches the profile of the ones mentioned above. And yes fish fly...I guess I win :P --Councilor 'Rumilee 21:46, August 6, 2010 (UTC) :And the model of a turian ship that Zaeed has perfectly matches the shape of the turian cruisers, even though it isn't (it's actually a frigate, IIRC). Weird. Almost as if there are ships of the same profile, but a different scale... how about that? Again, there is an in-game designation of a model ship from ME2 as a cruiser, but this designation has never been applied to the ships from ME. You also can't apply in-game labels to objects they have never been applied to as you please. As for winning, flying fish really have no bearing on that. Show us one instance (just one) of the label geth cruiser actually being applied to any of the ships you claim are geth cruisers. And I don't mean models that have the same outline. As Zaeed informs us, having the same outline means nothing. Just one instance. One. Should be easy with so much 'evidence' in your favor. Do that, and you win. SpartHawg948 21:49, August 6, 2010 (UTC) :: (edit conflict)But we've already decided that the model descriptions have too many mistakes, and too much bias, to be considered credible. If you find more proof from a better source, and you present it, I'll consider this a little more. Until then, there's just too little info to make this work. Arbington 21:54, August 6, 2010 (UTC) :::Too little info indeed. You are basing your entire argument on your assumptions and visual comparisions, niether of which are enough to justify anything. Find one source, and a reliable one at that, that shows us theat they are called crusiers. Until then your argument is based on things that aren't even enough to justify trivia, let alone something like this. Visual comparisions aren't enough to jsutify anything, just saying it again becuase of the turian cruiser/frigate thing, which is what your whole argument is based on. Lancer1289 21:59, August 6, 2010 (UTC) What? It specifically says 'typical of the kind involved in the battle of the Citadel' Those were the only ships aside from Sovereign and the much smaller dropships. --Councilor 'Rumilee 22:07, August 6, 2010 (UTC) :Still waiting for that one instance of the label 'geth cruiser' being applied in-game (i.e. not by you via extrapolation) to those ships. After all, there are at least some people who disagree that there were ships other than dropships there with Sovereign, which is why a canonical application of the term from a source that isn't of questionable validity (such as a civilian model-maker known to be inaccurate with their descriptions) would be great. SpartHawg948 22:10, August 6, 2010 (UTC) ::(Edit conflict)Again you are using visual comparisions and inaccuarte and bias model descriptions. Spart already stated that they aren't concrete proof, adn you still keep using it. Again find some real evidence, and not guesswork and conjecture, and then you might have a case. Until then you don't becuase you are basing it off of inaccurate and bias descriptions, visual comparisions, and your guesswork and assumptions. Lancer1289 22:13, August 6, 2010 (UTC) Oh, I'm sorry, when did you gain the right to tell Bioware what's canon, and what's not?--Councilor 'Rumilee 22:24, August 6, 2010 (UTC) :Apparently not before you did, Mr 'Those are geth cruisers'. I mean, I like to wait until BioWare actually says things like that, but hey, who knows better about this: BioWare, or you? SpartHawg948 22:25, August 6, 2010 (UTC) There is nothing contradicting what the model says though, except you. That still doesn't change the fact that the ships at the battle of the citadel weren't dropships. This article is still horribly wrong. --Councilor 'Rumilee 22:28, August 6, 2010 (UTC) :And there is nothing (not even the model description) that says that the geth ships we see at the Battle of the Citadel are cruisers. I don't dispute that cruisers were there, just that the ships seen are them. After all, nothing says that they were, except you. And the 'fact' that the ships at the Citadel weren't dropships isn't fact, it's opinion. You have been presented with all sorts of counter-evidence, and you either dodge it and fail to address it, or you (in essence) go 'nuh-uh!'. You need to try and make a real case, based on fact, not opinion. You are the one trying to impose canon here. SpartHawg948 22:31, August 6, 2010 (UTC) How are they dropships? They have never been called dropships. Who's imposing canon now? Also, the only Geth ships present at the Battle of the Citadel in ME1, are the Geth Dropships and the larger geth warships, labeled as cruisers by Model 13. --Councilor 'Rumilee 22:36, August 6, 2010 (UTC) :The only ones we saw were Dropships and the others. They are labeled as Cruisers by the model, which, as we established, isn't a good source of info. Please, either find another source, or throw in the towel, because we're just going in circles here. It does no one any ammount of good. Arbington 22:41, August 6, 2010 (UTC) ::Ummm... you're still imposing canon. I never, never said that the only ships seen absolutely had to be dropships. You, on the other hand, are arguing that they have to be cruisers. I have acknowledged that there were cruisers there. As soon as ME2 came out and I saw this model description, I came out and admitted I was wrong, and there had been cruisers there. I am simply unwilling to impose designations onto ships that BioWare themselves have not. That is, quite simply, imposing canon. I have not overlooked or ignored any evidence presented (which seems to be more than can be said for some), I just prefer canon over making things up and arbitrarily imposing labels where none are given. SpartHawg948 22:49, August 6, 2010 (UTC) You say the models are bad sources, except, can you prove the models are wrong in any circumstance? How do you know there aren't two models of Kodiak drop shuttles, they just have the same name, different producers. The Sovereign as a geth ship, is something the Citadel Council established. Citadel Souvenirs is run by the Council, why would it label Sovereign as a Reaper? Considering that's top secret information, and these models are available too the general public. The way how the model describes the geth ship, as 'typical'. The warships that were 'typical of the type seen at the battle of the Citadel' Typical-Conforming to a type Conforming-To give the same shape or outline. You can't say there were other warships at the battle of the Citadel aside from the Geth Cruisers and dropships without proof.--Councilor 'Rumilee 22:54, August 6, 2010 (UTC) :Simple. UT-47 is an Alliance military designation. Militaries don't designate two totally different types of ships with the same designation. That is the most laughable argument I've heard in a while. Once again, models mean nothing. One is flat-out wrong, the other is in-universe wrong, and a third demonstrates that having the exact same profile means nothing. NOTHING. Once again, the only decisive factor here is whether the ships you are talking about are ever themselves described as geth cruisers. Once again, models don't count, as if we used models, the turian cruisers would be frigates. Once more, find ONE example of these ships being called cruisers! Just one! I'm not saying they have to be called dropships, just that we shouldn't call them cruisers with no canon backing, as you want to do. SpartHawg948 23:00, August 6, 2010 (UTC) How am I imposing canon. Its rather clear what the developers intention was when putting that Geth ship in the model collection. To label the ships at the Siege of the Citadel as cruisers. This article also states that the ship on Aite is a damned dropship. This article needs heavy editing --Councilor 'Rumilee 23:11, August 6, 2010 (UTC) :And assuming the intent of the developers isn't imposing canon? Please. Now you're just being argumentative for the sake of it. SpartHawg948 23:13, August 6, 2010 (UTC) No, its just you're being defensive over something that's not even a big deal. I'm in the middle of creating a Geth Cruiser article. --Councilor 'Rumilee 23:14, August 6, 2010 (UTC) :Look, just chill out, man. No one is just going right out and saying you're wrong, it's just you haven't proven that you're right. Sure, it can be assumed that BioWare meant that, but it's just that, an assumption. We need solid evidence for this to be confirmed. Arbington 23:15, August 6, 2010 (UTC) ::(edit conflict) Good luck with that. And way to once again duck a piece of conflicting evidence, and to yet again fail to respond to a request for the one piece of evidence that could settle this beyond a shadow of a doubt in your favor. You're really quite good at both those maneuvers. I'm sorry if my wanting to keep things factual and canonical conflicts with your desire to make things up, but that's just the way things are done around here. SpartHawg948 23:17, August 6, 2010 (UTC) I just don't see why, I can't make the article, if something comes up that contradicts it later, I'll edit it appropriately. I mean, the fact that the ships at the battle of the Citadel weren't dropships surely didn't stop whoever made this article from imposing canon all over this page. --Councilor 'Rumilee 23:19, August 6, 2010 (UTC) :::The things you miss when you step out for an hour. Anyway I agree that its an assumption and I'll be the first to nominate that article for deletion because we have no factual evidence to back it up. You are assuming things and you still have yet to present evidence that was asked for. Since you have all this evidence, why don't you share. We keep things factual and canonical so an article about Geth Cruisers is an assumption, not fact. Oh and you are the on impossing canon, we have no canon evidence that there were cruisers at the Battle of the Citadel, and nor do we have eidcen thet those we see are curisers. Again if you have evidence then please share. Lancer1289 23:21, August 6, 2010 (UTC) :(yet another edit conflict) You're totally free to make the article. Just as, if it's full of speculation and whatnot, other users are free to nominate it for, and vote in favor of, its deletion. I never once stated you couldn't create the article. Please, go about your business of deciding what the developers really meant, and making things up. SpartHawg948 23:21, August 6, 2010 (UTC) The exact same thing you said can be said about the Geth Dropships at the battle of the Citadel --Councilor 'Rumilee 23:23, August 6, 2010 (UTC) :How so? We have canon evidence they were there. Remember that time you had to activate the turrets on the Citadel to chase off the geth dropship? I do. SpartHawg948 23:25, August 6, 2010 (UTC) Oh yes we have evidence they were there. However you have no evidence that they are the large ships that were harassing the Ascension. Or that it was on Aite. Dropships are much smaller than that. --Councilor 'Rumilee 23:27, August 6, 2010 (UTC) :And we have no evidence it was cruisers harassing the Ascension. As for Aite, you obviously haven't looked at this article lately, have you? SpartHawg948 23:29, August 6, 2010 (UTC) Look at the scene where the Normandy passes one of the ships hit by a cruiser Mass Accelerator canon. When Normandy passes it a lot bigger. Hell of a lot bigger than a dropship. As for Aite, you obviously didn't realize that I just edited the article. --Councilor 'Rumilee 23:33, August 6, 2010 (UTC) :If you edited the article, the site doesn't know about it, as it isn't anywhere in the page history. The last edit is the one I made a little while ago removing the Aite bit. Check it out if you don't believe me, just please don't take credit for things you didn't do. SpartHawg948 23:35, August 6, 2010 (UTC) ::Again do you have the dementions for the dropships or "crusiers" becuase we don't know how big they are, and neither do you. Also watch your language, we have guidelines for that. And don't take credit for someone else's work, that is just plain rude. Lancer1289 23:37, August 6, 2010 (UTC) The silhouette of the dropships and cruisers are different. You can't even argue that. I'd scale it, but I don't have the PC version.--Councilor 'Rumilee 23:42, August 6, 2010 (UTC) :And your scaling would be speculation because it isn't official and we all konw whow we fell about speculation. You would be using visual comparisions, i.e. speculation, to back up your claims, which you still have yet to present any evidence on. Lancer1289 23:43, August 6, 2010 (UTC) ::They are different, which is one of my concerns. Look at the silhouettes of the little ships around Sovereign, and then look at the silhouette of the dropship on Feros. They don't seem to match. SpartHawg948 23:44, August 6, 2010 (UTC) ...Great...so now we have two un-classified warships present at the Citadel. Why can't this be easy :(--Councilor 'Rumilee 23:56, August 6, 2010 (UTC) Spart and Lanc, you seem to double team a lot :/ Tiel424 Why do you keep removing my contributions, Lance? Let's discuss this. :Because of everything I state in my edit summaries. You have yet to provide a reason to violate site policy on specualtion, readd double links, insert incorrect information, and details that belong elsewhere. Lancer1289 19:26, April 19, 2012 (UTC) ::Give an example or two, hell, give me all the examples. Also may want to work on your spelling :P :::So maturity has gone out the window then. I have already given you one example, and as for the rest, some are so blatant that you asking for one says something, and one can be disproven by just looking at the Model Ships page. Lancer1289 19:34, April 19, 2012 (UTC) Dropships and Frigates Now I just read through this talk page, especially the argument about the dropships vs cruisers. Now while I would have called the larger ships in the Battle of the Citadel "cruisers" they have not been labelled ingame as such. But regardless, my point is on dropships vs frigates. It seems quite an assumption to assume that Geth Dropships are classified as frigates, especially when no difinative connection between the two craft have been made. As was mentioned in the earlier argument, two ships having the same silhouette does not mean they are the same ship. If this were the case, then turian frigates and cruisers (which both look the same) would have to be the same ship, which is clearly not the case. Anyway, my question is how do we know that geth frigates and dropships are the same craft, rather than two different craft with the same profile? It would seem that the dropships encountered during the geth incursion in the Armstrong Nebula, the Battle of the Citadel, and later on Haestrom, were much smaller than the ship that was seen attached to the side of the skyscraper on Feros. This ship was referred to as a frigate ingame, evidenced when the player highlights the landing claw. Thoughts? --Aerid77 07:51, April 22, 2012 (UTC)